From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/11] ARM: EXYNOS: add clock part for EXYNOS5250 SoC
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 05:47:48 +0000
Message-ID: <201202130547.48530.arnd@arndb.de>
References: <1328981685-8602-1-git-send-email-kgene.kim@samsung.com> <201202112007.08672.arnd@arndb.de> <20120211201430.GB24564@sirena.org.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.187]:65163 "EHLO
	moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751815Ab2BMFsL (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 13 Feb 2012 00:48:11 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20120211201430.GB24564@sirena.org.uk>
Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org
To: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>, Mike Turquette <mturquette@ti.com>, Kyungmin Park <kmpark@infradead.org>, Thomas Abraham <thomas.abraham@linaro.org>, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk, olof@lixom.net, Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>

On Saturday 11 February 2012, Mark Brown wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 08:07:08PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> 
> > what the risk is in changing exynos4 at the same time. It would
> > be great if we can have all exynos use the common struct clk in 3.4,
> > but I'm also happy if we just get exynos5 to do it that way from the
> > beginning and move exynos4 over in 3.5 after you have had a chance
> > to make sure everything still works.
> 
> Are we likely to get the common struct clk in 3.4?  It's all been
> extremely quiet on that front except for complaints about the lack of
> progress.

Yes, we discussed it during the subarch maintainers meeting at Linaro
Connect last week and it looks like we're finally going forward on
this now. Maybe Grant or Mike are better at explaining the current
status regarding the clk implementation and bindings.

	Arnd

From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann)
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 05:47:48 +0000
Subject: [PATCH v2 03/11] ARM: EXYNOS: add clock part for EXYNOS5250 SoC
In-Reply-To: <20120211201430.GB24564@sirena.org.uk>
References: <1328981685-8602-1-git-send-email-kgene.kim@samsung.com>
 <201202112007.08672.arnd@arndb.de> <20120211201430.GB24564@sirena.org.uk>
Message-ID: <201202130547.48530.arnd@arndb.de>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Saturday 11 February 2012, Mark Brown wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 08:07:08PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> 
> > what the risk is in changing exynos4 at the same time. It would
> > be great if we can have all exynos use the common struct clk in 3.4,
> > but I'm also happy if we just get exynos5 to do it that way from the
> > beginning and move exynos4 over in 3.5 after you have had a chance
> > to make sure everything still works.
> 
> Are we likely to get the common struct clk in 3.4?  It's all been
> extremely quiet on that front except for complaints about the lack of
> progress.

Yes, we discussed it during the subarch maintainers meeting at Linaro
Connect last week and it looks like we're finally going forward on
this now. Maybe Grant or Mike are better at explaining the current
status regarding the clk implementation and bindings.

	Arnd